You know what I'm having fun watching these days? I love the
people who have purchased the extremely small cell phones.
It's a blast to watch them try to have a conversation with
this two-inch long device. It's so small that they cannot
hear and talk at the same time. One guy I watched held it
like a walkie-talkie when speaking and then lifted it to
his ear to listen. It was hilarious! Every other sentence
started with "What? I didn't get that."

Did you hear...

This widget requires JavaScript to run. Visit Site for more...
Are going to buy Windows2000? If so, the first virus written
specifically for the operating system has come about. The
virus, called Win2K.Inta or Win2000.Install, is not "in the
wild" yet and is quite easily killed by current anti-virus
software, but it's an omen that virus makers are now writing
specifically for Windows2000. By the way, the virus is so
specific that if you put it on W98 or W95, it would do
nothing.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
International Data Corporation (IDC) is arguing that
Microsoft should be broken up as a result of anti-trust
findings. They suggest the company be split along the lines
of operating system, application, and tools and database
systems. I'll go with the same joke I used when I first
wrote about the findings. Can we call the three new
companies "Baby-Bills"? I'm not a fan of the suggestion as
I see these three sections themselves becoming three
monopolies in the fields.

Something.com for less! Two companies, Tucows.com and
Register.com were just given the go-ahead to register domain
names. Upon getting the nod, they announced domains at low,
low discount prices!! Get one year for ten bucks and ten
years for $100! That's 70% less than competitors. I hate
to say "told-you-so", but I said this would be the case
about 20 newsletters ago.

After being so wrong about the Y2K bug, I'm redeeming
myself by pointing out my being right about some
things. ;->

Now onto today's topic...

This past week I sat with a friend and talked about privacy.
It wasn't specifically Internet privacy, but privacy
nonetheless. She went into a laundry list of all of the
places that have and sell personal information. The
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and grocery stores were
her main targets. She was not happy that she had to present
a card each time she wanted ten cents off of a can of
snow peas.

I agreed that driver's license records should not be sold.
I wasn't so willing to fight over my "price-cutter" card.
When we started talking about the Web, we got into the
discussion I'd like to put to you today. What do you think
of this statement:

On the Web, absolute privacy is impossible. In fact, it's
dangerous.

Case in point, Kathleen O'Connor, a judge for Spokane [WA]
Country Superior Court has ruled that it is legal to record
email and private online chats without the people involved
knowing it.

Right now, someone is losing their mind over that paragraph
and proclaiming an invasion of privacy. But wait. There's more.

The reason for the recording was to catch 26-year-old Donald
Townsend in the act of posing as a 13-year-old girl in order
to lure young girls to meet with him. The judge's ruling came
after Townsend's lawyers tried to get the records suppressed
claiming privacy rights.

When I put that scenario to my friend, she replied that it
was great that they caught the guy, but that doesn't mean
they have to invade her own privacy.

Wait, how could anyone possibly do that? How do I know
you're not out to do harm, yet another person is out to do
harm?

Shouldn't we all realize that a measure of privacy must be
given up in order to allow for the recognition of people
like Townsend?

As Catholic University of America law professor Clifford
Fishman states, why can't we handle email and chat rooms
with the same rules as answering machines? The person has
to know by now that everything typed to an email or to the
Web is made a permanent record.

The irony of knowing that everything is recorded may
actually have an appeal for Townsend. Logically, if anyone
knew they were being recorded, they wouldn't make such
advances on children. Defense: I was just joking.

Remember the young man who made a false terrorist threat to
a Columbine High student? His defense is that he was caught
up playing a part in a chat room. Bottom line: he was just
joking. Luckily this time he was. What if the next person
isn't?

Let's go one step farther. If I stay with the premise that
those who use email and chat rooms know they are entering
information into a permanent record, then aren't they, in
effect, offering permission to record their information?

When you enter K-Mart, there is a sign proclaiming that
video cameras are in use. By going in, you are basically
giving the store permission to videotape your actions. You
know a record is kept of email, so using email is giving
permission to use those records in court.

Yes? No? Am I leaping a bit too far here?

So let me ask you once again. Is trading off some of your
privacy worth it if it means giving authorities the ability
to catch people like Townsend? I would suggest that it is.
I know this will anger someone, but there's no way to know
that you are a law-abiding citizen and Townsend is not.

Please don't answer that there is - we wait for him to act.
I don't want to wait that long. I want someone like him
stopped before he acts. That's what happened thanks to a
small loss of privacy.

At this point in my conversation, my friend informed me that
I had set up a situation simply to prove my point and that in
the real world, that lack of privacy goes much further. It
becomes spam emails and cookies. It becomes tracking abilities.

I cannot argue that there are people out there that will use
this privacy loss to send spam email. I hate the thought of
a ten-year-old boy receiving an email asking him to come to
a porn site. I hate the thought of a person using fancy
coding to post cookies if you don't want them.

I also hate the thought of Townsend succeeding because we
refused to allow even the slightest invasion of your Web
privacy.

In the February issue of PCWeek, Scott McNealy writes "You
have zero privacy now. Get over it." I'm nowhere near that
level, but I do think those who want complete privacy on the
Web should stop and think about what cover that complete
privacy provides.

Is it worth a few spams (which you quickly delete anyway)
and policing your child's email account, to disallow another
Townsend to work in complete privacy?

Think about it before you answer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's that. Thanks for reading. I really enjoy writing this
week after week.

Joe Burns, Ph.D.

And Remember: Here's a couple about wigs this week. The term
"bigwig" came from men in England and America's forefathers
wearing large white wigs. The bigger the wig, the more
important you were. At least that was the thinking. Those
same wigs allowed criminals to ambush and temporarily blind
a man by pulling the wool wig down over his face. Thus,
"pulling the wool over his eyes".

Loading Comments...

Web Development Newsletter Signup

Advertiser Disclosure:
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.

Thanks for your registration, follow us on our social networks to keep up-to-date